The total differential for the complex plane & the 3D and 4D complex numbers.

3D complex numbers, 4D complex numbers, CR equations

I am rather satisfied with the approach of doing the same stuff on the diverse complex spaces. In this case the 2D complex plane and the 3D & 4D complex number systems. By doing it this way it is right in your face: a lot of stuff from the complex plane can easily be copied to higher dimensional complex numbers. Without doubt if you would ask a professional math professor about 3D or higher dimensional complex numbers likely you get a giant batagalization process to swallow; 3D complex numbers are so far fetched and/or exotic that it falls outside the realm of standard mathematics. “Otherwise we would have used them since centuries and we don’t”. Or words of similar phrasing that dimishes any possible importance.

But I have done the directional derivative, the factorization of the Laplacian with Wirtinger derivatives and now we are going to do the total differential precisely as you should expect from an expansion of the century old complex plane. There is nothing exotic or ‘weird’ about it, the only thing that is weird are the professional math professors. But I have given up upon those people years ago, so why talk about them?

In the day to day practice it is a common convention to use so called straight d‘s to denote differentiation if you have only one variable. Like in a real valued function f(x) on the real line, you can write df/dx for the derivative of such a function. If there are more then one variable the convention is to use those curly d’s to denote it is partial differentiation with respect to a particular variable. So for example on the complex plane the complex variable z = x + iy and as such df/dz is the accepted notation while for differentiation with respect to x and y you are supposed to write it with the curly d notation. This practice is only there when it comes to differentiation, the opposite thing is integration and there only straight d‘s are used. If in the complex plane you are integrating with respect to the real component x you are supposed to use the dx notation and not the curly stuff.
Well I thought I had all of the notation stuff perfectly figured out, oh oh how ultrasmart I was… Am I writing down the stuff for the 4D complex numbers and I came across the odd expression of dd. I hope it does not confuse you, in the 4D complex number system I always write the four dimensional numbers as Z = a + bl + cl^2 + dl^3 (the fourth power of the imaginary unit l must be -1, that is l^4 = -1, because that defines the behavior of the 4D complex numbers) so inside Z there is a real variable denoted as d. I hope this lifts the possible confusion when you read dd…

More on the common convention: In the post on the factorization of the Laplacian with Wirtinger derivatives I said nothing about it. But in case you never heard about the Wirtinger stuff and looked it up in some wiki’s or whatever what, Wirtinger derivatives are often denoted with the curly d‘s so why is that? That is because Wirtinger derivatives are often used in the study of multi-variable complex analysis. And once more that is just standard common convention: only if there is one variable you can use a straight d. If there are more variable you are supposed to write it with the curly version…

At last I want to remark that the post on the factorization of the Laplacian got a bit long: in the end I needed 15 pictures to publish the text and I worried a bit that it was just too long for the attention span of the average human. In the present years there is just so much stuff to follow, for most people it is a strange thing to concentrate on a piece of math for let’s say three hours. But learning new math is not an easy thing: in your brain all kind of new connections need to be formed and beside a few hours of time that also needs sleep to consolidate those new formed connections. Learning math is not a thing of just spending half an hour, often you need days or weeks or even longer.

This post is seven pictures long, have fun reading it and if you get to tired and need a bit of sleep please notice that is only natural: the newly formed connetions in your brain need a good night sleep.

Here we go with the seven pictures:

Yes, that’s it for this post. Sleep well and think well & see you in the next post. (And oh oh oh a professional math professor for the first time in his or her life they calculate the square Z^2 of a four dimensional complex number; how many hours of sleep they need to recover from that expericence?)
See ya in the next post.

Majorana particles gone? How significant is this?

Magnetism, Quantum mechanics

It is no secret that over the years I have made a few rather bald predictions when it comes to magnetism. I think each and every electron is in fact a magnetic monopole and not a ‘tiny magnet’ like the professional professors think. As such I have predicted that all nuclear fusion reactors based on the magnetic confinement design will never work because if you turn such a machine on it will accelerate the electrons to crazy speeds creating tons of instability and turbulence in the plasma. And if I say ‘hey where is your experimental proof that electrons are actually magnetic dipoles’ of course nothing happens. You must never forget that all these physics professors are extremetly important persons and they will never mingle with inferior shit like people who are unemployed for almost 20 years now… No no no, we are not going to react on some crazy stuff like electrons are not magnetic dipoles. If we start doing that, the next day a homeless person will come along saying if we heal the electrons from their trauma’s you get better beer. No no no, incompetent people aren’t unemployed for no reason at all. We will neglect weirdo’s like that, after all we are the physics professors and we are on the edge of becoming masters of the universe once we have our quantum computers up and running!
I also predicted a few years back that the approach of the Delft university combined with Microsoft will not work because the Majorana particles they are based upon do not exist. It is very simple: a Majorana particle is it’s own anti particle, physics professors thought that if you combine an electron with a hole (the absense of an electron) you have a structure that is it’s own anti particle. But if you combine an electron with a hole, what mechanism is there to ensure the hole and the electron also carry opposite magnetic charges? Just like the electron and the positron carry opposite electric charges the same should go for the magnetic charges after my lazy unemployed insights.

A couple of days back when reading the news on Google news I made an internet search for ‘quantum computing’ and to my surprise there was an article from last May in the local newpaper De Volkskrant stating there was ‘bad luck’ for the heroes at Delft university. Oopsy toopsy, the Delft heroes had to withdraw an article published in Nature where the existance of Majorana particles was claimed. The fact that Nature published this bullshit in the first place is also interesting, likely the peer review mechanism works perfectly for getting the best of science into that outlet of articles. Today I checked what the publication fees are for Nature, it is only 5000€ or so (I more or less expected it to be at least 10000€) so today I learned something too… Those fees are of course a fundamental root cause as you will never find my name Reinko Venema in such overpaid shit publications. Why should I lay out 5000€ for something that will never ever pass the peer review hurdle? Since I am not an overpaid person, most of the time I try to spend my money wise.

I am sorry that the news article is in Dutch, but here is a link:
Tegenslag voor Nederlandse pionier van de quantumcomputer.

Anyway I consider this a very small success, of course the main success I am hunting for is that plasma instability in fusion reactors is caused by the acceleration of the applied magnetic fields and as such we cannot halt climate change with fusion reactors. But we have to do with overpaid university shitholes, so the waiting will be long. The combination of being overpaid while at the same time you are to stupid to ‘do the math’ often does not give a good outcome. As an example for that, look at the last financial crises that started in 2008: all those overpaid bankers and the troubles they created.

We close this post with a few pictures. The copyright of the content goes to Sam Rentmeester who likely made the photo from that extremely important Delft based physics professor:

Wow wow wow, do electrons carry magnetic charge?

Ok, that was it for this post. The next post is about math and we will dive into the total differential for 2D, 3D and 4D comples numbers.

Factorization of the Laplacian (for 2D, 3D and 4D complex numbers).

3D complex numbers, 4D complex numbers, CR equations, Laplacian, Magnetism, Quantum mechanics

Originally I wanted to make an oversight of all ways the so called Dirac quantization condition is represented. That is why in the beginning of this post below you can find some stuff on the Dirac equation and the four solutions that come with that equation. Anyway, Paul Dirac once managed to factorize the Laplacian operator, that was needed because the Laplacian is part of the Schrödinger equation that gives the desired wave functions in quantum mechanics. Well I had done that too once upon a time in a long long past and I remembered that the outcome was highly surprising. As a matter of fact I consider this one of the deeper secrets of the higher dimensional complex numbers. Now I use a so called Wirtinger derivative; for example on the space of 3D complex numbers you take the partial derivatives into the x, y and z direction and from those three partial derivatives you make the derivative. And once you have that, if you feed it a function you simply get the derivative of such a function.

Now such a Wirtinger derivative also has a conjugate and the surprising result is that if you multiply such a Wirtinger derivative against it’s conjugate you always get either the Laplacian or in the case of the 3D complex numbers you get the Laplacian multiplied by the famous number alpha.

That is a surprising result because if you multiply an ordinary 3D number X against it’s conjugate you get the equation of a sphere and a cone like thing. But if you do it with parital differential operators you can always rewrite it into pure Laplacians so there the cones and spheres are the same things…

In the past I only had it done on the space of 3D numbers so I checked it for the 4D complex numbers and in about 10 minutes of time I found out it also works on the space of 4D complex numbers. So I started writing this post and since I wanted to build it slowly up from 2D to 4D complex numbers it grew longer than expected. All in all this post is 15 pictures long and given the fact that people at present day do not have those long timespan of attention anymore, may be it is too long. I too have this fault, if you hang out on the preprint archive there is just so much material that often after only five minutes of reading you already go to another article. If the article is lucky, at best it gets saved to my hard disk and if the article has more luck in some future date I will read it again. For example in the year 2015 I saved an article that gave an oversight about the Dirac quantization condition and only now in 2020 I looked at it again…

The structure of this post is utterly simple: On every complex space (2D, 3D and 4D) I just give three examples. The examples are named example 1, 2 and not surprising I hope, example 3. These example are the same, only the underlying space of complex numbers varies. In each example number 1 I define the Wirtinger derivative, in example 2 I take the conjugate while in the third example on each space I multiply these two operators and rewrite the stuff into Laplacians. The reason this post is 15 pictures long lies in the fact that the more dimensions you have in your complex numbers the longer the calculations get. So it goes from rather short in the complex plane (the 2D complex numbers) to rather lengthy in the space of 4D complex numbers.

At last I would like to remark that those four simultanious solutions to the Dirac equation it once more shouts at your face: electrons carry magnetic charge and they are ot magnetic dipoles! All that stuff like the Pauli matrices where Dirac did build his stuff upon is sheer difficult nonsense: the interaction of electron spin with a magnetic field does not go that way. The only reason people in the 21-th century think it has some merits is because it is so complicated and people just loose oversight and do not see that it is bogus shit from the beginning till the end. Just like the math professors that neatly keep themselves stupid by not willing to talk about 3D complex numbers. Well we live in a free world and there are no laws against being stupid I just guess.

Enough of the blah blah blah, below are the 15 pictures. And in case you have never ever heard about a thing known as the Wirtinger derivative, try to understand it and may be come back in five or ten years so you can learn a bit more…
As usual all pictures are 550×775 pixels in size.

Oh oh the human mind and learning new things. If a human brain learns new things like Cauchy-Riemann equations or the above factoriztion of the Laplacian, a lot of chages happen in the brain tissue. And it makes you tired and you need to sleep…
And when you wake up, a lot of people look at their phone and may be it says: Wanna see those new pictures of Miley Cyrus showing her titties? And all your new learned things turn into insignificance because in the morning what is more important compared to Miley her titties?

Ok my dear reader, you are at the end of this post. See you in the next post.

Three video’s to kill the time.

Laplacian, Magnetism

Orginally I wanted to include some video in the previous post that serves as a teaser post for the impending factorization of the Laplacian for 2D, 3D and 4D complex numbers. But it was already late at night and only adding one video made the post look like it is just as chaotic as I always am…;)

So let’s get started with video number 1: Goodbye Determinism, Hello Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle from Irvin Ash. This Irvin guy is one of those professional Youtubbers that apearently can make money by throwing out a lot of video’s. In his case it is often physics and in my view he only repeats what he has read or seen in other video’s. There is not much original thinking in but hey Irvin can make a buck and it keeps him busy.

But in one of the video’s he is making such a strange mistake, it is so stupid that it is unbelievable. It is like stating that 1 + 1 = 3 or like 1 – (-1) = 0. Some mistakes or faults are so trivial that no matter what your own brain instantly recognizes something is going wrong. In this case Irvin explains the double slit experiment and his explanation for the first place where interference disappears is that they are out of phase by one wavelength… I wonder how you can make such a mistake without your own brain instantly jumping in with ‘that is not right’.

Why does his brain not react?

I also made a nice cube from the above screen shot:

I think I was 16 when we had to do such calculations…

And finally the video itself:

The second video is from Sabine Hossenfelder. Unlike Irvin Sabine has a lot of original thinking to share and as such she is a far cry from a talking book like Irvin Ash. In her video she explains how medical magnetic resonance devices work. Back in the time when I figered out that it is just not logical on all kinds of levels that electrons and other spin half particles are magnetic dipoles, for me it was important to find alternative explanations for things like MRI devices. In physics it is well known that accelerating electrons and protons give off electro-magnetic radiation, if there is zero acceleration no radiation is emmited. So the explanation as given in the video cannot be right, it is about magnetic moments that start spinning round and ‘therefore’ give off radiation. Problem with this is: there is no real acceleration so what explains the emitted radiation?

If protons and electrons carry magnetic charge, that is they are magnetic monopoles, all of a sudden there is room for acceleration and as such you can observe those resonance frequencies. Compare it to a music intrument: if you have a guitar with zero tension on the wires, it will never produce any sound let alone some cute music. In MRI scans there is also a static magnetic field, only when the protons and electrons are magnetic monopoles this ‘brings the tension’ needed for the resonance to work in the first place. Sorry Sabine, your version of physical reality has a lot of holes in it because it is based on the Gauss law for magetism and that law says that no magnetic monopoles exist…

You explanation does not carve any wood Sabine; why is the static magnetic field needed?

In case you never dived into the niceties of MRI scanners, please see the video. And don’t forget to be a bit critical: if protons are really magnetic dipoles, then what the fuck is that static magnetic field doing? But if protons (and electrons) carry magnetic charge all of a sudden things become logical. Not that I expect during my lifetime only one of the professional physics professors to say that I am in the right, but there is no use in getting emotional. All I do is repeating the nonsense that goes on as accepted common knowledge while it is retarded: If a proton has two magnetic poles then why do you need the static magnetic field?

The third video is about how Paul Dirac succeeded into factorizing the Laplacian differential operator. It is far different from how I managed to do that; I used so called Wirtinger derivatives and multiply those against their conjugate and voila: there is your factorization. No, Paul Dirac used 4×4 matrices that anti-commute and as such he was able to get rid of a nasty square root. Phyics people go totally bonkers on that calculation, I do not. Not that I do not like it, but Paul made the mistake of basing his matrices on the Pauli matrices for electron spin. And the Pauli matrices can’t be correct because it is based on the flawed idea that electrons are magnetic dipoles.

There is a funny anecdote going round about Paul Dirac. It says: There is no God and Dirac is his prophet. But serious: If electrons were magnetic dipoles you instantly run into dozens of weird problems. Like permanent magnets, of they are explained by the spins of the electrons aligning themselves and just as if you have a bunch of tiny magnets they will form a large permanent one. But in chemistry and electron pair with the same spin is known as an anti-binding electron pair. How can in permanent magnets the alignment of electrons enforce each other while in chemistry that causes a non-binding electron pair? Once more: I only use logic. It is logical that electrons, protons and neutrons carry net magnetic charge and as such are always magnetic monopoles.

Enough of the blah blah blah, here is the last video of this post:

At last a ‘cube picture’ for the Dirac thing:

Ok, that was all I had to day. Thanks for your attention and don’t forget to turn enough math professors into bio-diesel. Everybody knows that bio-diesel made from math professors is the finest quality there is on this entire earth… So good luck with the hunt for math professors…;)

Teaser for the next post on Wirtinger derivatives.

4D complex numbers, Exponential circle, Laplacian, Magnetism

Man oh man, the previous post was from 12 Nov so time flies like crazy. Originally I wanted to write a post on a thing you can look up for yourself: the Dirac quantization condition. I have an old pdf about that and it says that it was related to the exponential circle on the complex plane. Although the pdf is from the preprint archive, it is badly written and contains a ton of typo’s and on top of it: the way the Dirac quantization is formulated is nowhere to be found back on the entire internet. In the exponent of the exponential circle there is iqg where q represents an elementary electric charge and g is the magnetic monopole charge according to Paul Dirac. Needless to say I was freaked out by this because I know a lot about exponential curves but all in all the pdf is written & composed so badly I decided not to use it.

After all when I say that electrons carry magnetic charge and do not have bipolar magnetic spin, the majority of professional physics professors will consider this a very good joke. And if I come along with a pdf with plenty of typo’s the professional professors will view that as a validation that I am the one who has cognitive problems and of course they are the fundamental wisecracks when it comes to understandig electron spin. Our Pauli and Dirac matrices are superior math, in the timespan of a hundred years nothing has come close to it they will say.

Here is a screen shot of what freaked me out:

Furthermore I was surprised that the so called professional physics professors have studied stuff like ‘dyons’. So not only a Dirac magnetic monopole (without an electric charge but only a magnetic charge), a dyon is a theoretical particle that has both electric and magnetic charge. But hey Reinko, isn’t that what you think of the electron? There are two kinds of electrons, all electrons have the same electric charge but the magnetic charge comes in two variants.
There are so many problems with the idea that electrons are magnetic dipoles, but the profs if you give them a fat salary will talk nonsense like they are a banker in the year 2007.

So I decided to skip the whole Dirac quantization stuff and instead focus a bit on factorizing the Laplacian differential operator. I the past I have written about that a little bit, so why not throw in a Google search because after all I am so superior that without doubt my results will be found on page 1 of such a Google search! In reality it was all ‘Dirac this’ and ‘Dirac that’ when it comes to factorization of the Laplacian on page 1 of the Google search. So I understood the physics professors have a serious blockade in their brains because this Dirac factorization is only based on some weird matrices that anti-commute. These are the Pauli and Dirac matrices and it is cute math but has zero relation to physical reality like the electron pairs that keep your body together.

No more of the Dirac nonsense! I sat down and wrote the factorization of the Laplacian for 4D complex numbers on a sheet of paper. Let me skip all this nonsense of Dirac and those professional physics professors and bring some clarity into the factorization of the Laplacian.
It took at most 10 minutes of time, it is just one sheet of paper with the factorization. I hope this is readable:

Anyway it factorizes the Laplacian…

So that is what I have been doing since 12 April, since the last post on this website. I have worked my way through the 2D complex plane, the 3D complex numbers and finally I will write down what did cost me only 10 minutes of time a few weeks ago…

In a few days the post wil be ready, may be this week. If not next week & in the meantime you are invited to think about eletrons and why it is not possible that they are magnetic dipoles.

See you in the next post.

The directional derivative (for 3D & 4D complex numbers).

3D complex numbers, 4D complex numbers, CR equations, Matrix representation

A couple of days ago all of a sudden while riding my bicycle I calculated what the so called directional derivative is for 3D & 4D complex numbers. And it is a cute calculation but I decided not to write a post about it. After all rather likely I had done stuff like that many years ago.

Anyway a day later I came across a few Youtube video’s about the directional derivative and all those two guys came up with was an inner product of the gradient and a vector. Ok ok that is not wrong or so, but that is only the case for scalar valued functions on say 3D space. A scalar field as physics people would say it. The first video was from the Kahn academy and the guy from 3Blue1Brown has been working over there lately. It is amazing that just one guy can lift such a channel up in a significant manner. The second video was from some professional math professor who went on talking a full 2.5 hour about the directional derivative of just a scalar field. I could not stand it; how can you talk so long about something that is so easy to explain? Now I do not blame that math professor, may be he was working in the USA and had to teach first year math students. Now in the USA fresh students are horrible at math because in the USA the education before the universities is relatively retarded.

Furthermore I tried to remember when I should have done the directional derivative. I could not remember it and in order to get rid of my annoyance I decided to write a small post about it. Within two hours I was finished resulting in four pictures of the usual 550×775 pixel size. So when I work hard I can produce say 3 to 4 pictures in two hours of time. I did not know that because most of the time I do not work that fast or hard. After all this is supposed to be a hobby so most of my writing is done in a relaxed way without any hurry. I have to say that may be I should have taken a bit more time at the end where the so called Cauchy-Riemann equations come into play. I only gave the example for the identiy function and after that jumped to the case of a general function. May be for the majority of professional math professors that is way to fast, but hey just the simple 3D complex numbers are ‘way to fast’ for those turtles in the last two centuries…

Anyway, here is the short post of only 4 pictures:

Should I have made the explanation longer? After all so often during the last years I have explained that the usual derivative f'(X) is found by differentiating into the direction of the real numbers. At some point in time I have the right to stop explaining that 1 + 1 = 2.

Also I found a better video from the Kahn academy that starts with a formal definition of the directional derivative:

At last let me remark that this stuff easily works for vector valued functions because in the above limit you only have to subtract two vectors and that is always allowed in any vector space. And only if you hang in a suitable multiplication like the complex multiplication of 3D or 4D real space you can tweak it like in the form of picture number 4 above.

That was all I had for you today, this is post number 166 already so I am wondering if this website is may be becoming too big? If people find something, can they find what they are searching for or do they get lost in the woods? So see you in another post, take care of yourself & till the next post.

What is one-way light speed? + A plasma lamp in a magnetic field.

Magnetism, Uncategorized

Lately the Veritasium guy from the Youtube channel with that name came out with a video that made me think. It seems that the only way light speed has been measured experimentally is by using a mirror and as such you always measure a so called ‘two-way light speed’ average. It is possible that in this universe light has some preferred direction and in that derection it goes faster compared to say the opposite way.

You might wonder as why that is but that is the old problem Mr. Einstein faced & solved: It is very hard to get two clocks synchronized when they are apart. Vertitasium explains that if light has a preferred direction, in that case it all gets even harder and rather complicated.

Anyway to make a long story short, he also claims there has never been such a ‘one-way’ experiment. That made me think about it and I think that I have found a solution that does not depend on the nasty synchronization problem. All you need is two atomic clocks that are always a fixed distance apart. It gets more complicated compared to where there is perfect sync but if the universe has a preferred direction for light to go in, from the data you collect you should be able to find it.

First let me show you via a screen shot from the video what the usual way is to experimentally measure the speed of light:

Here you send out and receive light at the same spot in space.

Please first look at the video so you understand the problem here:

In the next six pictures I try to explain that using two atomic clocks on two satellites can pull the trick off. Both satellites have a laser or for that matter any em radiation would do like normal radio waves. And on both satellites there is perfect registration of the local time of the times a laser signal was put out or received. Both satellites should be in the same strength of the local gravity field so that their atomic clocks run at equal speeds. Every day both satellites send out one laser pulse on a fixed time and on a daily basis these send & receiving times are recorded.

So far for the first video.

We proceed with a video from the Brainiac channel. On Youtube there are more than one Brainac channels, I mean the guy with the big magnets. And with big I really mean big, the most heavy ones are a staggering 13 kg. A couple of years ago I wondered if I should buy a plasma lamp in order to study how my own set of small neodymium magnets should influence the plasma. These lamps cost only 20€ so that was not the problem. But I have already plenty of lamps so I decided not to do it. After all the photo’s from how an old television set reacts on the neodymium magnets should be enough.

Anyway that is what I thought: Given the fact the audience is composed of scientists, simply communicating the facts should be enough. And applying a bit of logic simply says electrons are not magnetic dipoles but in order to explain the behavior on an old television set is far better explained by electrons being magnetic monopoles. Of course now we are five or six years further down the timeline all I observed is that university people are still very good at just one thing: being important. And no no no, of course we do not talk about that. Electrons magnetic monopoles? Great minds from physics, also people who were very important, said it ain’t so. So no no no, we are important and those crazy people from outside science should shut up and pay the taxes we need for being so important.

Yet now a few years later the video from the Brainiac guy shows that the plasma in the plasma lamp does not react at all as you might expect from a bunch of magnetic monopoles. On the contrary: If he applies one of those 13 kg neodymium magnets, the plasma lamp stops working. So I am glad I never bought one of those lamps because that would make me doubt my own insights that were derived from the electron cannons in the old television set… But the Brainiac guy has much more electronic equipment and he soon found out that the plasma in a plasma lamp is steered by and alternating electric current. So the plasma shakes hin und her with a high frequency and it is not streaming in one direction or so…

Furthermore he explains perfectly why the lamp stops working: the applied magnetic field from the 13 kg magnet stops the transformator in the plasma lamp from working properly. And that explains why the lamp stops working… By the way, if electrons were really magnetic dipoles, the 13 kg magnet would never hinder the functioning of a transformator because a magnetic dipole the size of an electron is by definition neutral for external magnetic fields.

Well here is the perfect video if you want to understand a bit of nature and in case you are one of those fake scientist only occupied with the importance of self, why not walk to a mirror so you can look at yourself?

It’s a great video!

This post is getting far to long for the attention span people have in the present media environment. But I want to show you also a part that the Brainiac guy does not understand: the next screen shot from his video shows only electrons that are repelled by the giant magnet he uses. If he would have used an other direction you could have seen also the electrons that are attracted by the magnet. All of this stuff nicely confirming year in year out that it is impossible for electrons to be magnetic dipoles…

Ok, end of this far too long post. See you in the next post & thanks for having a long enough attention span for reading these very words.

On the work of Shlomo Jacobi & a cute more or less new Euler identity.

3D complex numbers, CR equations, Exponential circle, Matrix representation

For a couple of years I have a few pdf files in my possession written by other people about the subject of higher dimensional complex and circular numbers. In the post we will take a look at the work of Shlomo Jacobi, the pdf is not written by him because Shlomo passed away before it was finished. It is about the 3D complex numbers so it is about the main subject of this website.

Let me start with a link to the preprint archive:

On a novel 3D hypercomplex number system

Link used: http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=1509.01459&qid=1603841443251ler_nCnN_1477984027&qs=Shlomo+Jacobi&in=math

Weirdly enough if you search for ‘3D hypercomplex number’ the above pdf does not pop up at all at the preprint archive. But via his name (Shlomo Jacobi) I could find it back. Over the years I have found three other people who have written about complex numbers beyond the 2D complex plane. I consider the work of Mr. Jacobi to be the best so I start with that one. So now we are with four; four people who have looked at stuff like 3D complex numbers. One thing is directly curious: None of them is a math professional, not even a high school teacher or something like that. I think that when you are a professional math professor and you start investigating higher dimensional complex numbers; you colleagues will laugh about it because ‘they do not exist’. And in that manner it are the universities themselves that ensure they are stupid and they stay stupid. There are some theorems out there that say a 3D complex field is not possible. That is easy to check, but the math professionals make the mistake that they think 3D complex numbers are not possible. But no, the 2-4-8 theorem of say Hurwitz say only a field is not possible or it says the extension of 2D to 3D is not possible. That’s all true but it never says 3D complex numbers are not possible…

Because Shlomo Jacobi passed away an unknown part of the pdf is written by someone else. So for me it is impossible to estimate what was found by Shlomo but is left out of the pdf. For example Shlomo did find the Cauchy-Riemann equations for the 3D complex numbers but it is only in an epilogue at the end of the pdf.

The content of the pdf can be used for a basic introduction into the 3D complex numbers. It’s content is more or less the ‘algebra approach’ to 3D complex numbers while I directly and instantly went into the ‘analysis approach’ bcause I do not like algebra that much. The pdf contains all the basic stuff: definition of a 3D complex number, the inverse, the matrix representation and stuff he names ‘invariant spaces’. Invariant spaces are the two sets of 3D complex numbers that make up all the non-invertible numbers. Mr. Jacobi understands the concept of divisors of zero (a typical algebra thing that I do like) and he correctly indentifies them in his system of ‘novel hypercomplex numbers’. There is a rudimentary approach towards analysis found in the pdf; Mr. Jacobi defines three power series named sin1, sin2 and sin3 . I remember I looked into stuff like that myself and somewhere on this website it must be filed under ‘curves of grace’.

A detail that is a bit strange is the next: Mr. Jacobi found the exponential circle too. He litarally names it ‘exponential circle’ just like I do. And circles always have a center, they have a midpoint and guess how he names that center? It is the number alpha…

Because Mr. Jacobi found the exponential circle I applaud him long and hard and because he named it’s center the number alpha, at the end I included a more or less new Euler identity based on a very simple property of the important number alpha: If you square alpha it does not change. Just like the square of 1 is 1 and the square of 0 is 0. Actually ‘new’ identity is about five years old, but in the science of math that is a fresh result.

The content of this post is seven pictures long, please read the pdf first and I hope that the mathematical parts of your brain have fun digesting it all. Most pictures are of the standard size of 550×775 pixels.

Yes all you need is that alpha is it’s own square.

Ok ok, may be you need to turn this into exponential circles first in order to craft the proof that a human brain could understand. And I am rolling from laughter from one side of the room to the other side; how likely is it that professional math professors will find just one exponential circle let alone higher dimensional curves?

I have to laugh hard; that is a very unlikely thing.

End of this post, see you around & see if I can get the above stuff online.

Funny format/more pics needed & idiots at MIT observed?

Magnetism, Uncategorized

Slowly but surely I am getting better at the GIMP (a free program for manupilating images). Right now I can place pictures in perspective while the GIMP als has a 3D picture manupilating tool I haven’t even used by now. Now one day I will have to end my usual way of formatting pictures, the biggest disadvantage is that you must always have a windows XP computer. May be it is possible to run a virtual XP on a windows 10 system but I never managed to get it properly at work. On the other hand computers in for example pin automats (money machines at the bank) still seem to work on XP. So likely in the future their will still be motherboards and CPU’s that allow for a fresh install of that mighty windows XP system.

Anyway with GIMP you can easily use the perspectives tool and place rectangular selections into a perspective like shown below:

This is the original as found near my birth village.

I have no clue if this is readable. At 1440 pixels I could read it but now…

No, the above format for publishing math does not work properly I guess. It is a screenshot from a post from earlier this year: Calculating the 3D exponential circle using first principles.

Now in another development I was also not very lucky. I found a few pictures of the creation of an electron-positron pair in a bubble chamber. Now if my view on electrons and positrons being magnetic monopoles is correct and because in a bubble chamber you have a magnetic field present, from the moment of creation they should start accelerate in opposite directions. And I thought all I needed was just one Google picture search but the results were a bit disappointing. Yes you can find some pictures but most of the time it is just one photo that is recycled over and over. Another disadvantage is that you see the electrons and positron bubble paths only in the direction of the magnetic field that is applied so that the electrons & positrons can do their typical circular movement due to the Lorentz force so it is abosolutely not possible to see the eventurental acceleration into the direction of the magnetic field lines… Well most of the time you find the next picture and yes it looks like the one particle is ‘going in’ and the other is ‘going out’ but that is all there is. No sideviews found at all and that is what I need. An interesting phenomenum that should occure is the next: Due to the bubbles there has to be some kind of drag on the electron and positron. So their velocities along the magnetic field lines should take on some limiting value. If that can be found that alone should be enough to validate that electrons canny magnetic charge and that all this ‘tiny magnet’ stuff is total bs.

This is one of the miracles of the universe.

And the last item for this post is the MIT people. Again it is blah blah blah because we now have stronger magnets we can make smaller nuclear fusion reactors. But if my view of electrons being magnetic monopoles in the end will be victorious, stronger magnetic fields do not solve the acceleration problem. Electrons get constantly accelerated and because there are two types of electrons namely the north and south charge they will get accelerated into opposite directions.

I have been saying this for years and years and still the university people keep on doing their retarded thing and not proves that electrons are actually magnetic dipoles. In the meantime those imcompetent shitholes keep on making promesis for a better future when it comes to energy for the population and blah blah this & blah blah that.

Remember the time that Lockheed Martin came out with the same kind of bullshit? By now we should have had the first mobile fusion reactors and of course they are nowhere to be found. And now we have exactly the same nonsense from MIT.

It’s not going to work, but try explaining that to a bunch of total incompetents! Here is a Youtube with the MIT stuff (about six minutes long):

One more proof university people are incompetent.

We are dealing with a bunch of people too stupid to find out in centuries of time how 3D complex numbers should be found (or defined). And all I get is total neglect and they go on with their blah blah blah. Give us, the tax payer, finally some fucking proof that electrons are magnetic dipoles and that the structural instability of the plasma is not caused by accelerated electrons! Of course, as usual, there will be silence. Only the sound of silence combined with blah blah like ‘we now have stronger magnets’. Climate change is not going away in the meantime and it is charlatans like this that will make people going on with polluting the atmosphere more and more because there is some false hope nuclear fusion will save the day. Once more: Likely it is not going to happen. Look at the Lockheed Martin folks; they still have nothing to show for despite their past blah blah blah about having stronger magnets…

Ok, that was it for this post. The next post is about a math article from the preprint archive that is about 3D complex numbers. So keep tuned and see you next time.

Is a weak planetary magnetic field dangerous for the atmosphere?

Magnetism

Today I came across a very interesting video from SciShow where they claim that computer models suggest that a weak magnetic field gives more leakage of the atmosphere compared to a situation where a planet like Mars has no magetic field at all…

The video is very interestig because it compares the earth versus some of the other planets in our solar system. It is not much of a secret that I think electrons carry magnetic charge and that is what makes them ‘move along magnetic field lines’. If electrons carry magnetic charge means they are magnetic monopoles and not the magnetic dipoles that is more or less included in the standard model of particle physics.

As usual we only apply the thing called ‘logic’ and we do not get emotional because the academic field does not respond year in year out. Ok ok, I am human too so let me allow a tiny amount of emotion: All those physics professors that think electrons are magnetic dipoles are just like math professors: incompetent to the bone because of groupthink. In the case of understanding magnetism the groupthink is easy to explain: it is the Gauss law for magnetism (magnetic monopoles do not exist) while there is zero experimental evidence for that Gauss law.

Why do particles with non zero spin move along magnetic field lines? I think that is because they carry net magnetic charge. The weirdo’s from the universities think that it is done because of the gradient of planetary magnetic fields. Of course it is never backed up by some calculations because: 1) Planetary magnetic fields are rather weak in the first place and because of that: 2) The gradient of such fields is completely neglectible. You see once more: All you need is a bit of the thing known as ‘logic’. Why the university people do not want to apply the thing known as logic is unknown to me. In my view it is far better to use logical reasoning if you want to make a bit of progress in understanding the stuff out there in the universe; but after talking like that for the last six years or so it has become clear university people just don’t want to think ‘logical’.

Let’s move on, why waste time on people that are mentally handicapped anyway? In the next picture you see a perfect accumulation of how not understanding electrons in a magnetic field leads to all kinds of weird representations of what actually is going on. Yes the earth magnetic fields acts as a ‘shield’ for the solar wind, but it is not that the particles that make up the solar wind ‘bounce off’ that shield. The next representation is rather retarded but that is what you get when humans just hold on the the Gauss law and hold on and hold on & just want to be retarded idiots.

This is absolutely not what is going on. How can the earth have aurora’s this way?

Moving on, the video mentions computer simulations. But if you craft computer simulations where the electron is a magnetic dipole while the thing known as ‘logic’ say they cannot be magnetic dipoles, how can these computer models be a realistic representation of what is actually going on? Of course those computer models can’t do that, so these computer models must have some feature inside them that makes particles with non zero spin accelerate in magnetic fields.

Moving on, those computer models suggest leakage from the Mars atmosphere in the past if it had a rather weak planetary magnetic field. The reason I write this post is that they arrived at the conclusion that a weak planetary magnetic field leads to a situation where the magnetic field lines are not closed. They originate at the planet but never return to it.

Talking about idiots: That detail alone violates the Gauss law for magnetism (all magnetic fields always close in upon themselves).

But the insight of how a weak magnetic field could lead to more planetary atmosphere loss is brilliant.
All of my life I was too stupid to make it up:

Why do electrons get accelerated by planetary magnetic fields?

At last here is the video that aroused my attention:

Let me close this post with two more ‘things’.

Thing 1: Almost by definition if the electron is a magnetic dipole it is neutral when it comes to magnetism. Just atomic hydrogen has one proton and one electron and as such it is neutral under the influence of electric fields. Let’s do a thought experiment: Suppose a planet as a whole has a strong electric charge either positive or negative of say a few million volts. Furthermore this planet has an atmosphere of atomic hydrogen (ok that is not very realistic but anyway). Now does the electric potential cause a dramatic atmospheric loss of the atomic hydrogen that is neutral in electric fields?

No of course not, because the atomic hydrogen is electrically neutral it has no net force acting on it. Hence a planetary size eletric potential should not lead to a loss of non-ionic atoms.

Thing 2: They once tried to figure out if the neutron was an electric dipole (or may be an electric tripole because after all the neutron seems to be composed of 3 quarks). They failed hard. But if we compare electron size to neutron size, likely the electron is orders of magnitude smaller than the neutron so why should the eletron not be neutral when it comes to magnetism?

Ok ok, the goodie old Stern Gerlach experiment says that electron is not neutral under magnetic fields hence elementary logic says the electron cannot be a magnetic dipole. As such all electrons must be magnetic monopoles…

As you see, when doing ‘scientific stuff’ it is always better to use logic and not silly emotions. Of course I get irritated nothing changes but why get overly emotional? And don’t forget: suppose somebody has done the perfect experiment that indeed validates electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles. Well such a person will be at the end of his or her career because no ‘respectable scientific journal’ will post such a result. That’s the way it is, so I don’t care about those journals.

Let me leave it with that. See you in the next post.